> These men are known in Russia as the “siloviki” — “men of force”, or perhaps even, in the Irish phrase, “hard men”.
Just to clarify. The word "siloviki" made from "силовые структуры", which may be translated literally as "structures of force", or less literally but preserving some meaning "armed organizations" (maybe "armed forces", but I think that in English "armed forces" doesn't include the likes of police and security guards). It refers to police, military or any other organization with a dress code that requires a gun.
"siloviki" is literally a "men of power" ("sila" in Russian is "power" in English) => these include the FSB (an FBI equivalent, or the ex-KGB in practice) and MVD (the police). That's it.
Good news - as result of Ukraine war failure these lowlifes are starting to eat each other - the director of foreign intelligence of FSB has just got arrested for "embezzling money intended for sabotage and gathering of intelligence in Ukraine and for providing false information about political situation in Ukraine" :)
"Meanwhile, panic appears to be setting in within Putin’s inner circle, with the Russian leader allegedly firing eight generals and putting the head of his FSB spy arm Sergei Beseda and his deputy under house arrest"
All that while 3 generals have already been killed in Ukraine in addition to uncounted number of officers with no major military success. That is bound to cause "friction" between various arms of the "siloviki". There is also a large fight brewing between FSB and Chechens (they have been in "cold war" state) as large convoy of Chechen forces in Ukraine was completely destroyed by Ukrainians based on information that seems to had been leaked by FSB.
Putin surrounded himself with yes men. These people are afraid to displease Putin and end up taking shortcuts left and right to give him what he wants. Only fear is keeping this system from crumbling, they’re all afraid of eachother.
“ Soldierov told the British Times that it could well be that the FSB had realistic knowledge of the situation in Ukraine - the only question was what was passed on to Putin.
"The problem lies in the fact that it is often risky for those responsible to tell Putin things that he doesn't want to hear," Soldierov said.”
Anybody who watched just some Ukrainian TV (I like Zelensky's humor production) in recent years knew it, no need for whole spy agency. Of course they told Putin what he wanted to hear.
Are you sure about that? I know Google Translate says "vlast" but I speak a Slavic language and "vlast" means motherhood/home in my language. Could be just the online translation not being accurate?
Tons of "false friends" between Slavic languages. E.g. "urod" could mean "beauty" in some and "freak" in others. In Russian "sila" means primarily "force" or "strength" and in the context of "siloviki" it refers to the armed forces and law enforcement as the top of this thread states.
Thanks for the laugh. An automated translation tools, especially dumbed down online ones, never work right because they don't have a context or a means to provide it.
Mind you, you changed 'strength' (noun) to 'strong' (adj) in your example.
"He is forceful" if you insist on playing this game. Another derived adjective if forcible but it has a bit more elusive meaning (forcible entry into a building)
> ...The word "siloviki" made from "силовые структуры", which may be translated literally as "structures of force"...
"siloviki" => members/heads of the law enforcement and security agencies, read "enforcers". But "hard men" passes the forceful connotation well enough.
Well, FSB is an intelligence agency, and they wear guns or at least have a license to wear gun.
Though I cannot argue. I rely on my intuitive knowledge of Russian which is hard to use as a rational argument. This knowledge tells me that "силовые структуры"/"structures of force" are organizations that use force to solve problems. And I think that all of them wear guns. But I may be wrong with that last statement, and moreover language is changing, so the generally accepted meaning of the word can differ from what I had learnt in my childhood.
They are also a military branch and have military ranks, although they don't wear uniforms. The FSB acts like a combination of FBI, a border patrol and secret police.
They are also the group allowed to carry out an assassination on foreign soil (according to Russian law), although they are not allowed to authorize such a mission on their own.
Gun carry (or more specific open or concealed carry) is the more popular phrase, due to the popularity of EDC (every day carry) as a phrase covering everything from guns to knives to keychains; however, "wear" is not a linguistic mistake, but an alternative to "carry".
"Wear" differentiates from things that you carry in your hands or pockets or a bag. Things that are part of your dress, like watches, ties, and handguns in holsters, are more "worn" than "carried", though it could be either.
What were you hoping the readers of your comment would gain from your comment?
Apologies if this comes off abrasively. This is a genuine question that thought to myself when I read your comment. I can't think of a better way to phrase it.
> I’m a native U.S. English speaker and I didn’t think twice about “wear a gun”.
Maybe it's regional. I've never heard it said that way before. "Are you wearing a gun"? "Concealed wearing laws"? Doesn't sound right, but I guess people do use it.
Don't cops ask "Do you have a gun on you" or "Are you carrying?". I think most of us would find it weird if a cop asked us "Are you wearing a gun?".
”Wearing” a gun pretty specifically is used for having it in, or at least with, a holster (I’ve seen it used a lot, and always with that meaning; it is pretty much the combination of wearing the holster and carrying the gun that goes in it; I’ve mostly seen it used of people who do that regularly as part of a job or lifestyle, either speaking about them in general or discussing whether they were or were not doing so at a particular time.) “Carrying” is more general and more often of interest.
> Don't cops ask "Do you have a gun on you" or "Are you carrying?"
In person, I’be most frequently observed the former (fortunately, not much experience), but on TV both cops and crooks tend to use “carrying” with an implied direct object a lot.
> I think most of us would find it weird if a cop asked us "Are you wearing a gun?".
Sure, because that's not what a cop is likely concerned about.
> Nobody says "wear a gun". It doesn't sound right.
Native speaker, I have heard other native speakers say (or seen them write) “wear a gun” quite a bit. “Carry” seems to be more currently common, but far from exclusive.
A dress code could require wearing a gun (i. e. wearing both a gun and a holster - when someone puts a vest on you say they're wearing a vest even if the vest only touches the shirt - ditto shoes and long socks) and nothing else and it would still be a dress code. I would even say that a policy that you can wear anything is a dress code in the same way the unlicense is a license.
I think that undercover or plainclothes in most cases has enough rules that it constitutes a dress code, even if you think a dress code needs to have rules about more than one article of clothing to be considered a dress code.
Afaik, mafia does not require gun and holster on you typically. Plus, in situation where you have to have one, it is closer to requirement to have a tool with you then dress code.
I don't understand why the need to twist mafia into dress code group. Russian mafia is know entity, so is albanian one. Ukraine mafia exists too. It is just that, dress code is not what would be associated with them.
Point taken. I retract my statements. I think it is possible to have a dress code for under cover policing. I guess the only thing left is that I think that a dress code is not the same as a uniform, and that an undercover operation could have a dress code similar to a nightclub, where there are rules but no specific products that have to be worn.
The Irish term “hard man” is more of a meaning about a persons spirit/ attitude to certain things. It does mean someone you don’t want to mess with or in fact have any sort of dealings with. (unless you can equivalently “nullify” their attitude and there’s only one thing usually that can nullify a “hard man”… and this the cycle begins.
Policemen wear guns, and it doesn't sound like an organized crime.
The root of the word "siloviki" is "sila", which means "force". And it is about using force in order to perform their job. Like policemen do. Or security guards. Or soldiers.
And it is not used to refer to crime activities. They also use force, but they are not "siloviki".
> Sounds a lot like organized crime, is it supposed to have that undertone?
As does "Department of Homeland Security". That was the first federal agency named that way, and prior to that people would have thought that sort of naming to be associated with the Stassi or a totalitarian regime. I suppose it is commonplace now.
„ Ukraine’s place in this doctrine was accurately summed up by former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” The Russian establishment entirely agrees.“
This theory was already controversial in 19th century, but in 21st century it is completely absurd. If you want to be an empire nowadays, you don‘t need a huge Black Sea fleet or a huge amount of land. You need a very strong economy. But occupying Ukraine will not help Russia accomplishing that.
It is absurd, that the Russian elite believes into a theory written by an American, which was originally proposed by the British in the 19th century to explain why they need to fight the Russian empire in the Crimean War of 1853.
Does a dollar a day sound more affordable? Just read the news over a cup of home-brewed coffee instead of getting a take-out, and you should easily break even. :)
If I'm going out to get my avocado toast anyway, it only makes sense to get the coffee with it since I'm right there. Maybe they should let me round up my change to get the day's FT news with my coffee at Starbucks instead.
They regularly have some deals going around. ft.com/weekendpodcast would also show you some deals. I pay around $80 a quarter. Like OP, worth every penny and it’s much more than just a financial newspaper.
I get WSJ through work and NYT/WaPo are all super cheap. I’ve just never found the quality of FT. So I decided to pay for it. Another publication I recommend is The Economist.
I was a subscriber for ten years, but gave up on them over mediocre coverage of important issues in the US and East Asia, about which I had some knowledge. Relying on their reporting risked costing me money in my investment decisions.
Indeed. FT used to be a must-read 15 years ago with investigative journalism and decent counterpoints on any issue. Now it's mostly one-sided opinion with little more information than you can read everywhere else. It's very sad.
Wasn't asked but wanted to chime in as well: I think they share some of the content now that the FT is owned by Nikkei. I notice some Nikkei bylines in the FT from time to time.
For the record, I find the East Asia (and Europe) coverage decent. It's their US section that I'd say is in dire need of an improvement. Overall, a lot boils down to individual correspondents/writers: some are great while others not so much and thus best skipped (although the comments can also provide a lot of insight if the topic as such is interesting).
Strangely, one figure is notably omitted from the "exposé" is Dmitry Medvedev. Who is none other than the former president, and still acting member of the current "politbureau"...
Who knows, maybe he is the "one senior official" mentioned as being the author's source on some of the topics. Protect your sources!
I think this is something you should watch if you are interested in how russia works. It's very straight talk and clarified russian mindset a lot for me at least.
What do you expect, really? Russians live in feudalism, only with modern technology. They haven't known anything other than totalitarian regimes, and when they had a little democracy after '91, it all fell apart for most of them. Maybe all of the interested parties should read a bit of Russian literature? If you want shortcuts, just read Vladimir Sorokin, but it's really more nuanced. The thing about suffering is also very enshrined in the Eastern Orthodox mindset.
>Even otherwise calm and reasonable members of the Russian establishment have snarled with fury when I have dared to suggest in conversation that it might be better for Russia itself to let Ukraine go.
This all seems a bit unfortunate. I mean there are many examples of similar countries next to each other - US/Canada, France/Belgium, maybe even England/Scotland and it's no really tragedy to let the less powerful one do it's own thing and be independent if it wants. In England in the past we've made efforts to control Ireland and it's caused a bunch of problems compared to if we had just let the thing go without the Donbass / Northern Ireland stuff.
"I believe, however, that Putin and the siloviki (though not many in the wider elites) welcome this isolation [from the west]. They are becoming impressed with the Chinese model: a tremendously dynamic economy, a disciplined society and a growing military superpower ruled over with iron control by a hereditary elite that combines huge wealth with deep patriotism, promoting the idea of China as a separate and superior civilisation."
The idea of a centralised planned state fell with the USSR, and it was widely argued that it fell _because_ of central planning. China is becoming a counter-example for the people who have always been fond of the idea of having a state ruled by an "elite", with the perception that democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning.
The world changed in a very significant way over the last 70 years. Even more so over the last 20 years. It may very well end up that the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC. Now it’s a synchronous call with satellite footage of every inch of the earth. It may very be that centralized planned economies are now the superior model and only the test of time will unveil which is true.
I’ve lost a bit of sleep wondering about this over the years.
Central planning hasn’t been “hard to implement” its been a absolute disaster not just due to information scarcity, but for the same reason massive organizations in free markets rot from within.
> It may very well end up that the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC.
There are more and less (de)centralized democracies. The US (and others) are formed from federated regional governments:
As for democracies: one problem with non-democracies is negative feedback can be difficult. If things are headed in a bad direction, it can be hard to get that message through to those in charge if they lean autocratic and become isolated from reality. Folks are afraid to bear bad news because messenger get shot (proverbially or literally).
> the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC
Telegraphs were used in the 1840s [1]. They went transatlantic in the 1850s [2]. The game change is not in modern autocracies being better at planning. It's in surveillance. What took the KGB and Stasi armies of informants filling cabinets of index cards can now be run out of a single data centre by a small team of loyalists.
The common failure mode of centralized systems, peaceful transitions of power and/or long-run economic power, is thus not addressed. (Founders have a decent record, at least in their early years [3]. But with each subsequent generation, the gap between the stability of monarchies and eccentricity of dictatorships widens. Putin is a first-generation autocrat. Xi is a bit more complicated, though I'd argue the CCP hasn't had power so concentrated since Mao, and China barely limped through that transition.
Maybe the efficiency gains in surveillance and repression will turn what would have been a revolutionary failure into a slow-burn diminishment. Whereas previously a resistance could have festered and grown, today it can be nipped in the bud, preventing the internal power competition that rejuvenates the system.
On the other hand, the Information Age might for the first time in history enable true democracy, where every political decision can instantaneously be made by the voting populous. (not that farce of a democracy where a highspeed jet is allegedly steered by the binary input of "left" or "right" every four years)
> the Information Age might for the first time in history enable true democracy
We’ve had true democracy. It doesn’t work. It careens into majoritarianism while hyperpartisanship tears it apart. The American system balances democracy against oligarchic and monarchic stabilisers. One could argue that our present situation results from forgetting the need for that balance.
Governments can be learning organizations, especially when they have long time horizons and balance agenda with reality. If anything, I think China has shown that central planning can work and is even the envy of Western leaders (see: Canadian PM Trudeau's admiration).
The implicit agreement in China is that in exchange for your freedom, you receive prosperity.
Russia - especially after the West seriously damages their economy - can easily form a similar narrative, especially when the West is being sadistic about it. Nationalize most things now when the equity is dirt-cheap because unwise Western governments have forced the hands of banks, investors, and funds; then privatize things as the new anointed class rises. Key for them will be to reward merit and capability, not just loyalty.
China doesn't have a centrally planned economy though. It certainly has a lot of state intervention, but resources are primarily allocated through market mechanisms.
Much of its industrial policy actually resembles that of democratic states like Korea and Japan.
I'd argue China's experience presents a great argument for a mixed market economy that allows state intervention, while also recognising the importance of markets and decentralised economic coordination.
However, we shouldn't overhype China's progress. The fact of the matter is that China was always destined to become an economic juggernaut given its population size, stability, and resources.
It's just China had been tied down by Mao and his supporters managed to hijack the government for several decades and hindered China's ascent with their whacky policies. We're now seeing it snap back to where it belongs.
> democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning
Which is moot, because the USSR planning model also had 5 year plans. Also some European democracies are run by a coalition. See for example the Nederlands and also Germany to a lower degree. It's less efficient in case of armed conflict, but most people are represented in times of peace.
Yes, but the success of China was built on an export economy. They're consuming more internally as they become wealthier, but it remains to be seen how smooth that transition will be. There have been many burps already (Evergrande, the banning of crypto mining to prevent wealth flight, etc...).
Turning China into an inward-looking closed market is an idea still, not a recipe.
Correct! Now not to say some basic competency was not there - b/c it was - but trade with west is a major part of their success sort of like Japan kind of presaged for them in the 1980s.
Russia is the world’s largest exporter of wheat and second-largest exporter of weapons. Ignorant comments like these do nothing to reduce tensions between Russians and the West.
Oops, forgot about wheat -- that's a real concern. I was going to add weapons to my list but it was more along the lines of "consumer oriented" goods.
On the other hand, my comment does diddly squat to our relations. Please go on and explain how I'm contributing to international tensions with my not-fully-informed question.
Russian literature, ballet, gymnastics, classical music among other things. Come on, you can't possibly equate a 144M country with gas, vodka or Putin.
But Putin and Co don't seem to have the tools to create a dynamic economy or a disciplined society. They may admire China; they can't follow the pattern.
They're a mafia and a bad one at that. Russia will become a Chinese satellite just like Kazahstan and Mongolia. It was probably going to anyway, but Putin just made sure of that when he attacked Ukraine. At least China had a mechanism for continuation of power, which Russia doesn't appear to have. What happens if Putin dies or is toppled? They'll put the next NATO paranoid FSB boss in charge? Compared to the Gorbachev era USSR they look like a bunch of juveniles playing with nukes they've inherited from their parents.
Agreed. And the reverse ... Russia may talk up china and vice versa but china more likely does that to annoy the west. China cannot see Russia as a going concern or model except for 1-3 year tactical eg. import Russian energy that Europe is buying anymore
The "Chinese model" is as old as civilization and has been implemented and collapsed many times in China itself. If Putin establishes a new czarist dynasty in Russia, it will end up just like the last one.
> Explaining his position on NATO, Putin said that Russia is part of European culture. “I can't imagine my own country apart from Europe and the so-called civilized world, so I can hardly imagine NATO as an enemy.
The problem is that the Russian understanding of "civilized" is different from the Western one.
Just look at the "civilized" way he treats his people.
Let's not even talk about the Moscow bombings that got him into power. The "it was an inside job" conspiracy is true, but in Russia, not in USA.
Putin views what he's doing now in Ukraine as a civilized thing to do, Russia was promised things, wronged and now he's solving the problem after warning about it. Like civilized man do.
This is why Russia will never be in NATO. Everybody understands that the Russian bear will lash out after a perceived slight.
There is a great talk about "honor culture" versus "dignity culture". Russia is a "honor culture", the West is a "dignity culture". They don't mix.
I read an incredibly thorough book about Putin a year or so ago, and what stuck with me is how political his career in the KGB was. In those final years of the USSR, everything was in shambles, and any position of power became so through-and-through political. That makes his rise so interesting and frightening. He has been forged in a dark web of covert slush funds, power projection and kompramat. He was obviously very good at that game, and it continues today.
EDIT: The book was "Putin's People" by Catherine Belton
I don't know that I would refer to Professor Mearsheimer's view as pro-Russian, he has plenty of criticism of Putin and the Russian political system in general. But the fact that he has been railing on the likely consequences of our approach for dealing with the Russia/Ukraine situation for years, and been proved right, should make his writing and interviews required for anybody seeking to better understand who we got here.
Well it's at least telling that we're not allowed to refer to that as a coup, isn't it? I mean, what else would we call a revolution where a democratically elected government is removed from power and replaced with one backed by an adversary, which then immediately rewrites the Constitution to put that country in an adversarial foreign policy position to their powerful neighbor?
1: Democratically elected stretches reality towards the end. The end was not a free and fair democracy nor free and fair elections.
Yanukovych was an autocrat and stooge. copying many of the same tactics as his protector Putin to stay in power beyond public support: suppressing opposition, faking votes with international orgs deemed un true/not valid election, using his private military to intimidate and suppress.
The people of Ukraine WANT to join the EU and be a part of European trade. Perhaps not all but a vast majority.
That's the crux of Maidan.
Yanukovych said he would sign the economic agreement which had broad support across the country. But did a 180 and ran to Putin (literally and figuratively, he physically fled). If any country was holding a gun it was Russia.
2: It was not a coup. This was not a military take over, decapitation by a 3rd party nation, or middle of the night execution.
He was removed through an act of parliament after IMENSE popular opposition via democratic sentiment/uprising among the people.
Even if that act itself wasn't laid out exactly in their constitution, what came next were legitimate free and fair elections which is indisputable.
People and countries should be free to chart their own future.
To remove themselves from the foot of authoritarianism and to rewrite and reimagine their government towards Democracy, European trade, & freedom.
A bully autocrat & former controlling country shouldn't be allowed to shut down the will and future of tens of millions just because they have a larger army and threaten nuclear war.
>Even if that act itself wasn't laid out exactly in their constitution
Way to bury the lede. This is the issue. The coup was illegal, was it not? That doesn't even mean it was necessarily wrong, but can we at least be honest and call it unconstitutional?
That's like saying the American Revolution was a coup because it violated King George's imperial laws.
I guess it's a debate about etymology but coup does not fit reality imho.
That also supposes that the laws were being followed in the first place.
They weren't.
People have a right to chose their government. If the government abuses the people and ignores the rule of law and democracy the people are right to seek better government.
>That's like saying the American Revolution was a coup because it violated King George's imperial laws.
I wouldn't have a huge problem with that characterization, I'm not saying all coups are bad just call it what it is though. The main difference in 1776 though is there was no new leader put in place into an existing government system. The entire government was rebuilt from the ground up. In Ukraine, they just installed their guys.
While the structure of the human-filled government positions was indeed rebuilt, there was a continued reliance on English common law, to the point that I believe early after the revolution courts still used English cases as precedent. What I was taught in high-school was that the French Revolution was more tumultuous because it relied much more on tearing down the establishment than the American Revolution did.
Many of us are binge reading history in all directions. But yeah the authority-flooding is exhausting. I mostly mentioned him to balance my comment. I have no idea which is true or not here.
What he states is historically true, and if you oversimplify it you might come to the conclusion that Russia simply had to invade Ukraine. But that's bullshit, nothing good ever came of it. The dumb part is that the West financed this war, not that they caused it.
What can I say.. in this era we keep watching back to find who did what.. and international relationships history is a dumpster of vague talks, mild backstabbing, potential manipulations.. and kilotons of paranoia. I can never find any clarity in this.
I kinda agree that the putin logic is far fetched..
Even Putin agrees, he's been wandering from one pretext to another hoping that something will stick. Let's see if any 'Ukranian' planes bomb Belarus or there is some ridiculously farfetched dirty bomb plot that will allow yet one more country to not only be bullied to accept Russian troops (though I don't think Lukashenko needed much bullying) but to actually incur casualties for what isn't their war at all. Obviously, when Putin draws in other countries it is fine, but when Ukraine asks for help that's cause for WWIII.
No, it's just that he happens to allow you and others to do what you like about it: trumpet all over that 'the West' caused Russia's invasion into Ukraine. When in fact if you follow that line of thought it was Hitlers mom who caused World War II.
The only person responsible for the invasion into Ukraine is Putin, it was entirely optional, no matter who predicted that it would happen.
Also: there is a substantial number of HN accounts in recent times whose only purpose seems to be to plant Russian talking points and I wonder if those are mostly by useful idiots or by hostile parties, so be careful whose water you carry.
I'm sure you will find a way to tie each and every man, woman and child murdered by Russian soldiers to 'the West' but it isn't very believable, even if you have to find the need to quote a professor (your appeal to authority was noted).
It doesn't take much imagination to think what the US would do if China began to make a "special pact" with Mexico. The US would very aggressively put that to an end, one way or another. This is essentially the same. Of course if we continue to coax the expansion of NATO (ie the international arm of the US military) onto the Russian border it will cause problems. Why would we ever pretend otherwise?
Perhaps some historical context would help? Going back 25 years there has been universal acknowledgement that the further expansion of NATO to Russian borders was guaranteed to trigger conflict and potentially WWIII - https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...
No, we should blame mothers milk. Every dictator that was ever born drank it, therefore mothers milk is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine.
Again, can you please stop with the dumb propaganda pieces trying to West-Wash the Russian invasion into Ukraine? It is beyond boring. If it is your goal to drive people away from HN by rehashing the same inane arguments over and over again that is of course your freedom but since you, as a new entrant are not gaining anything and we lose something it would seem that this is a non-zero sum game where in the end we're looking at a net loss.
The only party responsible for the invasion of Ukraine is one V. Putin and by extension the Russian state. Attempts to drag the past in by the ears or otherwise are counterproductive. If anything NATO should have accepted Ukraine because we already know the result of not accepting them. See also several treaties that Russia just decided to wipe its arse with.
If you don't think the expansion of NATO, the US-backed Ukrainian coup/revolution/othercutename[1] or the US essentially handpicking the post-coup leadership in Ukraine[2] have anything at all to do with why Russia has decided to invade Ukraine, what do you think is the reason?
The bit about welcoming the patriotism of war reminded me of the 'conspiracy theory' that Putin blew up some of his own people in order to consolidate his power.
Now, some people believe that, some people don't, but since just before he invaded Ukraine he announced that they were one people, he's literally done the same thing again, blowing up "his own people", for his own political games, but openly.
That's a very useful and important article. So that's who Putin talks to. A very small group who share his worldview: It is the manifest destiny of Mother Russia to have an empire in Eastern Europe.
A key point that has emerged from a number of sources is that Putin's crowd has no plan B.
This isn't considered by Russia's leadership to be just a military adventure - if it works, great, if it doesn't work, pull back and try something else. It's a must-win operation.
Historically, this sort of thing ends only when the leader is killed.
They aren’t going to win. Their economy started with noticeable issues and has since been obliterated. Aggression wars against a weak opponent are remarkably expensive and Ukraine has received a significant amount of support (I’d estimate around 20b so far) whereas the ruble and Russian markets (bond, equity, and a large portion of export/import) have been nuked. They are running on fumes in a war that is projected to run for quite some time.
It seems like Putin will only surrender after he's expended everything he's got, and among "everything he's got" includes several thousand nuclear missiles...
I'm sure that if they are the last man standing and all of Ukraine is turned into rubble soaked through with blood that they'll declare victory. But it won't amount to much.
Real people with power build they don't destroy. The likes of Putin only know how to kill and how to destroy.
The phrase "for Russia" seems inappropriate. You mean for Putin. And... maybe? I'm not convinced. Even Stalin had to regularly kill off the people around him to maintain power.
Curiously Orthodox Christian mysticism creeps in to this sense of destiny as well which is really scary. See:
"Russia’s Menacing Mix of Religion and Nuclear Weapons
In the Kremlin, Faith and Force Go Hand in Hand"[1]
Another member of this inner circle not named in this article is Yuri Kovalchuk who's the largest sharedholders in Rossiya Bank in addition to National Media Group. He is a long time friend and advisor to Putin and subscribes to this same Orthodox Christian mystic narrative where Russia needs to save the world from the West.[2]
There's a book by Gary Lachman about this that came out a couple of years ago called:
"The Return of Holy Russia: Apocalyptic History, Mystical Awakening, and the Struggle for the Soul of the World"
> Historically, this sort of thing ends only when the leader is killed.
Sometimes not even then. If the person who takes over is also a true believer in this manifest destiny, it can go on until all the believers in the inner circle die off.
And all behind paywall, as if they didn't want you to see what they are writing.
In time of crisis like this you should expect FT to do at least a token contribution to spread true information. Other commercial news outlets like say New York Times let the casual reader read a few articles for free, but not FT it seems.
Hacker News isn't an activist group, it's a tech website. Individuals on this site may or may not be "doing" something about Ukraine but there is no reason to associate this with HN being "good" or "bad".
I've seen this sentiment in other places as well. Everything doesn't have to be coopted into activism for the current cause.
I know this is a selfish perspective but the Ukraine/Russia news cycle has been hitting my mental health pretty hard. Its nice to come here and see the usual interesting techy stuff and get a break from the horror.
Not that I disagree with your point. This is a place of intelligent discussion which could perhaps benefit Ukrainians better.
Yes HN is supposed to be about intellectually interesting ideas. And the fight against war and fascism needs those because otherwise we are in deep sh*t. So why not combine the two?
The situation with Russia is much about information. HN is about information and IT, no? HN could be the primary forum to discuss ways to counter MIS-information.
There seems to be a deep problem in Russia, its citizens are mostly duped by misinformation pushed by their government. What kind of intelligent solutions exist or could be developed to counter that?
Just this once, I want to contribute a "view from the inside" on how things work in Russia [in my opinion].
Sure, some people are hoodwinked by the propaganda. However, a weird misunderstanding is that "if they new what the Truth was, they would surely relent".
From what I've gathered growing up in Russia, that's not quite the case. I don't know why, but a lot of people here have a very apathetic view on politics. In that even if they knew all the "real truth", they wouldn't go into "fight mode", but would instead go into "man, same shit as usual, our life's about to get harder" mode.
I've just chatted with some friends who don't support the war effort in any way and are just as dismayed as your average European Joe (Giuseppe??) (and they have relatives in Ukraine too). What struck me really hard is that once again I had a glimpse of this weird mentality, whereby the person laments being in bad circumstances and start doing a lot of planning (and hoping) on how to deal with the coming misfortunes. Taking control of the change and nipping the said misfortune in the bud is just plain out of sight!
With this in mind, the problem that needs to be solved, in my opinion, is the "victim mentality" in the population, rather than the "misinformation", since "solving" misinformation would seem to push people into the usual victim loop.
Just my 2 cents, and I'm no one and my opinion is based solely on more than a decade of life in Russia.
I'll make it easier: it requires a lot more mental fortitude to observe that the country that nominally represents you is engaging in something abhorrent so the mind wants to believe the lies, because they are more comfortable.
For people who ended up supporting the war, yes. Propaganda worked, because constantly filtering misinformation is not exactly conducive to a normal life. Trust is the default mode of operation for a human who did not grow up in adverse conditions.
But grandparent seemed to refer to people who actually live such a life. People who do not support the government and are preparing for the worst. They distrust everything, they see that innocent people are dying and country is headed towards extreme times, but they treat it as impossible to change. This is pretty bleak.
Yes and but I think the problem is larger than just Ukraine. It is also about elections and people assuming they were fair meaning they don't realize or can not know that there are many more people opposed to the status quo than it would seem.
I think the apathy you describe could be to a large degree result of - misinformation. I don't have the answer nor any particular insight on what it's like inside Russia so I appreciate your input. And I think it's a worthy subject for discussion. The western world is not free of misinformation either.
HN is a tech news aggregator website. Some of us are more active in the appropriate forums. Do you leave comments on cooking websites suggesting they need to take action?
People who cook could help in their own way. Hacker News is has people who could tell you about how to run a botnet hack, mount an effective DDOS or the appropriate type of crypto to donate and how to get it.
Nevermind, though. I'm just feeling helpless and want to do something. I need to think a little deeper about it.
Building and exporting weapons is illegal (without lots of government approval). Attacking computer systems of other countries is illegal (even if they're Russia). Russians already have all the tools they need to bypass censorship.
Not OP, but Russians don't necessarily have easy access to those tools, or won't have it going forward. Running Tor nodes or organizing to provide VPN access is something that all of us can do.
I reckon the population of hacker news has drifted tremendously over the last decade. More content about the general grind of corporate tech industry, less focus on entrepreneurship. Many people in the tech industry who read and comment on HN are focused on exploiting the status quo and enjoying salaries offered by roles in large corporations
Perhaps one consequence of this drift is that people with more radical activist leanings, who are more likely to actually do something, are going to be more likely to hang out and discuss somewhere else rather than here
(i am not pointing any fingers, i haven't engaged in any kind of activism for years and grind away at the IT day job in exchange for salary.)
edit: the above argument lazily conflates people interested in tech industry entrepreneurship with people interested in activism. that doesn't make much sense, both groups will have quite different goals and often be in conflict. but i think there is definitely a drift where much of the people following tech industry news here on HN will be increasingly mainstream & functionally conservative.
Why are you frustrated? Have you mentioned here what you are doing to help Ukraine? If you haven't done things or have helped but not mentioned that here, why should others mention what they may be doing?
I'm thankful that HN is (kind of) remaining an island of politics-light STEM discussion, differentiating itself from the angsty college protestor vibe of places like Reddit. The response is muted because 1) increased maturity, and 2) moderation.
I'm not as surprised, given the kind of discussion we've seen the last few years. Hacker News main audience isn't true hackers. A large proportion of its readers are techno-libertarian startup/venture corporatists, many with an authoritarian bent.
Business, despite all its press and media to the contrary, isn't war. People are not dying and suffering and you don't really face any repercussions from your actions. War is a totally different thing so asking people to "move fast and break things" doesn't really make sense in that context especially when there are actual physical repercussions.
Also why should the people on this site really care? Honestly I get it is not great but in the grand scheme of things I don't care. I am tired of war, I have watched my friends and family members server in wars for this country since the early 90's. I don't recall Ukraine sending f*ck all for them. As such I just don't have it in me to give a sh*t at this point in time.
>Also why should the people on this site really care?
Would you care if gangsters showed up at your house and told you that everything you owned now belongs to his gang? Would you care if that happened to your neighbor?
If you think this will never happen to you, think again. This world is a brutal place filled with people that would take from you every single thing you hold dear without a blink of an eye.
>don't be surprised when Putin invades Latvia and Estonia.
They are NATO countries, so no. People are acting all surprised by this Ukraine invasion but it's been an ongoing thing for many years. This didn't just happen. Even before the coup/revolution in 2014.
Why? Because Latvia and Estonia would sue the rest of NATO for not abiding by the treaty? Is there any other reason the West would not try to prevent a nuclear apocalypse by appeasing Putin with these "token" countries? Does the rest of the NATO countries really want to die for them? Do we really want to test that hypothesis?
Take a look at the Putin's speeches starting with the 2007 one in Munich, and including the ultimatum Russia presented to the West just before the current invasion. Look up the "Escalate to Deescalate" strategy and the Russian nuclear doctrine. Read the Kremlin-funded "historians" and "philosophers" and Putin's own writings on Russia and Ukraine.
Well if an invasion of a NATO country doesn't invoke Article 5, then NATO ceases to exist. Is that what you think would happen? You think Putin sees Latvia which is backed by the largest military in the world as the same risk as Ukraine which has no such backing?
No I am saying they aren't our ally and have never been one nor acted like one.
They want to use us for their own benefit, which yes every country does, but I am just over caring about everyone else at this point.
